By Ranjona Banerji
Concerned citizens of Dehradun are currently involved in a struggle with the government of Uttarakhand over the “Smart City†scheme rolled out by the Centre. The state government decided to opt for the “Greenfield†provision and develop 250 acres of a partly functioning tea garden in the heart of the city into a “smart†zone. Citizens, tea garden workers, environmentalists and conservationists would rather that the city of Dehradun is improved and that a historic tea garden is not destroyed.
I have been involved with this movement and have attended a couple of meetings. And sadly for me I have had to cringe, cower and cravenly apologise for the sort of media coverage this protest has received. First, my gratitude to the media – the protest has been generously covered in almost every newspaper which has a bureau in Dehradun and by local TV as well. But that is where the gratitude turns a little to disgruntlement.
Because not a single newspaper has managed to get details of the protest correctly. For instance, and this I know firsthand, my father who is president of the Friends of the Doon Society, one of the NGOs involved, has been quoted on the issue. However, no journalist spoke to him and he spoke to no one. It’s not a bad quote but he didn’t give it. The Friends of the Doon has spearheaded the agitation but at the last big meeting at the tea gardens, Friends of the Doon officebearers have been identified as belonging to Citizens for Green Doon. And so in every report in every newspaper: little mistakes, carelessness and lack of attention to detail.
I have interacted with some young reporters at one venue and they were all bright, young and enthusiastic people. And I do not know if the errors were theirs or someone at the desk or shortage of space or what. But it is not hard to guess that it is a combination of all three. The problem is that the Indian media does not take such transgressions seriously. How many newspapers in India have ombudsmen? (This is rhetorical question or perhaps you can do some homework?) A little quote missed here, a little fake attribution there, it’s all considered par for the course.
Nor do we have researchers who check back on quotes. This is a laborious, labour-intensive and time and money consuming process. No wonder we don’t bother in India since newsrooms are run by manager-editors whose sole concern is often pleasing the management by reckless cost-cutting.
All I can say is being on the receiving end of journalistic carelessness and having to explain their actions and find excuses without being disloyal to my profession is turning into a very difficult exercise! And this loss of trust does not help in the long run for any publication.
**
While on the subject of ombudsmen (ombudspersons?), The Hindu celebrates 10 years of having a readers’ editor. SA Panneerselvan writes careful, considered columns as he takes on the issues of the week and the criticism that the newspaper has faced. The letters column sometimes carries criticism of the readers’ editor which illustrates a journal which takes its readers seriously!
Here, The Hindu traces its 10 year journey with its three readers’ editors:
http://www.thehindu.com/specials/10-years-of-the-hindus-readers-editor/article8295971.ece
And here Panneerselvan explains the process: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/Readers-Editor/responsive-editorial-team-makes-selfregulation-work/article8292582.ece
**
The other newspaper which once had a readers’ editor at least for the Mumbai edition was The Hindustan Times, where Sumana Ramanan started the process very well but it seemed to falter after she left.
Time for a rethink or at least a think all round?